But the simple truth is that even if Oona had run a faultless campaign her chances against Ken were always slim for the simple reason that she simply hasn't got the profile to win.

Because whatever the merits of Oona as a politician (and she does have them) the fact is that Labour were highly unlikely to choose a candidate that the vast majority of Londoners hadn't even heard of.

Realisation of this has come in the past couple of weeks with the steady trickle of Labour right-wingers to the Ken camp.

Because while they may not like everything about Ken or his policies, they like losing even less, and a victory for Oona would have meant a certain loss in 2012.

Mayoral contests after all are mostly about profile and not policies.

Because while Boris has done little for London since being elected he has done plenty for himself, using the job as a daily opportunity to puff his feathers and catch the media's eye.

And while the Prime Minister has to face an opposite (and alternative) number every day, in City Hall the incumbent can go for years on end without having to compete for publicity at all.

In its current form, the London Mayoralty is as close to an elected dictatorship as it is possible to get, albeit a dictatorship with very limited powers.

Once in power it is incredibly hard for an opponent to unseat you, unless they have an even bigger and more persuasive profile than your own.

Boris managed it in 2008 through sheer force of personality, and he is understandably confident of retaining it in 2012.

But by choosing their candidate early, the Labour party hope that they can now share at least some of that profile in the final year and a half of Boris's term.

Of course I could be completely wrong and Oona King could be about to secure a famous and historic victory.

But whoever is announced as the winner in two days time, they're going to have a lot of work to do to in the run up to 2012.

Thursday, 16 September 2010

Boroughs across London have hit out at proposals by Boris Johnson to remove dozens of traffic lights describing them as poorly thought out and dangerous.

Correspondence between the boroughs and Green London Assembly Member Jenny Jones reveal a widespread reluctance to remove the lights amidst concerns about cost and safety

Both Lib Dem run Kingston Council and Conservative run Havering rejected all of TfL's suggestions, whilst Tory run Bexley said they had "no immediate plans" to remove the lights.

Tory run Richmond also said that it was "unlikely" that they would remove any of the proposed lights.

Meanwhile Kensington and Chelsea said that the discussion was "premature" whilst Harrow council pointed out that two of the suggested crossings were only installed two years ago.

They also point out that the latter two form part of the London Cycle network, a scheme that the mayor is presumably signed up to:

Jenny Jones AM said today:

"I am glad that local authorities are rejecting some of the Mayor’s suggestions and taking the time to consult local people and the vulnerable about others. It seems ridiculous to be taking out crossings which have only been put in two years ago. A more sensible and cost effective approach would be to have a systematic review of whether traffic signals are worthwhile, when they are actually due up for renewal. There seems to have been a lack of clear communication between Transport for London and the boroughs.”

TfL estimate that removing the 145 crossings would cost around £1 million although this figure is disputed by some.

Labour London Assembly Member Val Shawcross said of the plans today:

"Not only have these plans given rise to serious safety concerns but, at a time of huge government cuts, wasting such a large sum of public money on a potentially dangerous scheme that it seems no one wants strikes me as madness."

The principle of removing traffic lights did get support from one council however.

Motorist-loving Barnet said that they "generally support" the scheme but added that the suggested sites had already been considered by the council.

They expressed regret that TfLs propoals were released before they were able to "correct this mistake."

Wednesday, 15 September 2010

Boris Johnson told the Assembly today that Brian had taken an "entirely spontaneous" decision to forego his planned increase:

"[Brian] seems to have disappeared so he can't hear my congratulations but I think he did the right thing, as you doubtless know he came to me because he was aware of some troublemaking and muckraking that was going on about these allowances and he came up with a fresh set of proposals."

"Boris dislikes Brian intently. He will avoid having a meeting with Brian at all costs. Bit of bad blood due to what happened during the election period. But also, he doesn’t like the way Brian does business. He doesn’t like Brian as a person. Doesn’t like the way he handled the Fire Authority in the first year."

For some reason Brian Coleman left the chamber today while the above was being discussed.

Wednesday, 8 September 2010

Today she has a great scoop on the continuing and deep dislike Boris Johnson has for his disgraced fire chief Brian Coleman:

According to a previously unpublished interview with former Deputy Mayor Ian Clement (admittedly not the most credible source but still)

"Boris dislikes Brian intently. He will avoid having a meeting with Brian at all costs. Bit of bad blood due to what happened during the election period. But also, he doesn’t like the way Brian does business. He doesn’t like Brian as a person. Doesn’t like the way he handled the Fire Authority in the first year.

"So I was tasked with finding a replacement, talking to a few people, seeing if we could find someone to slot in there when Boris, shall we say, did Brian’s legs."

Despite much provocation, Boris has still failed to nobble Brian's legs which has prompted some to wonder just what dirt Brian has on him.

Perhaps the real reason for his hesitance is the fear that Coleman would be more trouble outside the tent than in.

If so he's made a fundamental error.

Brian is a liability to both Boris and to London, and the sooner Boris "does his legs in" the better for all of us.

There were shouts of "disgrace" in City Hall today as Conservative London Assembly Members walked out of a debate about the future of tube ticket offices

The Assembly were due to debate a motion on Boris's planned cuts to ticket office opening hours, when all the present Tory AMs walked out.

Under GLA rules the Chair Dee Doocey was then forced to bring the meeting to a close as less than half of the Assembly were present.

The issue of ticket office closures is what prompted yesterday's tube strike and there were shouts of outrage from those who had come to hear the motion debated.

Liberal Democrat Assembly Member Caroline Pidgeon said after the meeting:

“It is shameful that the London Assembly has today been prevented from debating key issues including the threat to people living in homes owned by the Crown Estates and the planned reduction in opening hours at tube ticket offices. These are bread and butter issues for Londoners and the London Assembly is here to make sure London's voice is heard."

This is the second time that Tory AMs have walked out of an Assembly debate on ticket office closures:

Labour Assembly group leader Len Duvall said today:

"They’re actions are disgraceful and bring the Assembly into disrepute. Londoners elect their Assembly members to represent their interests, not to close down debate when the tough questions come up. Boris Johnson made a clear promise to keep ticket offices open but is now breaking that promise. His Tory colleagues know that this will be deeply unpopular across London so they are running scared.

To put those figures in perspective, a successful £10 bet on Ken would give you a return of £22.50 whereas one on Boris would give you £21.

Oona meanwhile would get you a whopping £90.

Of course it's just betting odds and we haven't seen a poll for a very long time, but as Boris wrote in the run up to the general election:

"Here you are looking at the predictions that people are willing to defend with their own money... The reason I trust the punters of Betfair more than I trust a poll in a Sunday paper is that the punters have thought it through with the care of those investing their own money."

So come on Boris put your money where your mouth is and tell us finally whether you're going to run again in 2012.

"a trumped-up and politically motivated attempt to have a pop at the Coalition government."

Now what kind of left-wing antagonist would do such a thing?

Oh yes here's Red Boris just a few paragraphs before:

"Transport Secretary Philip Hammond has been asked by the Treasury to accept astonishing cuts — of between 25 and 40 per cent. As I have repeatedly made clear to the Coalition government, I believe cuts of that order would be disastrous for London transport network.

I cannot and will not accept them, and am therefore fighting to preserve and improve our transport infrastructure."

"Of course it is a good thing to bear down on wasteful public spending, and the deficit must certainly be reduced. The question is how far and how fast this can be done without provoking a double dip recession – and the risk is that if there is a serious downturn at the end of the year, it is the Coalition that will cop the blame."

After a series of stories about the Mayor being “ready to explode”, the Financial Times approached the Local Government Secretary Eric Pickles to see what was actually happening.

The paper was told that there had been “no conversation about funding between Pickles and Johnson” and that there was “no meeting in the diary” either. Pickles’ team claimed that “the whole exercise seems to have been artificially created to bolster Boris’s credentials.”

Times are hard in government right now. But for a Mayor struggling to be both in government and in opposition, the times must be even harder still.

The latest edition of Snipe is out on the streets along with my take on Boris's promised "cycling revolution"

"The most remarkable thing about Boris Johnson’s “cycling revolution” is that there doesn’t appear to have been one. Despite millions of pounds of investment, reams of publicity and a high-profile cycling mayor, the amount of journeys taken by bike is low and is expected to remain so...

"Boris’s new bike hire scheme is proving popular but it’s on a frustratingly small scale with fewer than a third of the number of bikes as the Paris Vélib’ scheme covering less than half of the area.

"And while lots of Londoners are using the new bikes, multiple software faults and delays to open registration mean that many more have chosen to keep away for now."